Where's the gorilla? - Phil Collins with his International Achievement Novello

I have to confess - I'm writing this blog slightly hungover: yesterday I went to the Ivor Novello Awards.

Many of the recipients of yesterday's prizes, which are kind of the Oscars for songwriters, first entered the music industry before CDs were even invented. In a business with a 98% failure rate, where today's hottest young thing can become a has-been by the time their second album hits the shops, it is impressive and inspirational to see artists who have managed to stay in the game for decades (and none of them could have done it without writing damn good, even great, songs). But still, they're all worrying about the future

The majority of column inches dedicated to Amy Winehouse focus on her private life, but the fact remains that she's a brilliant songwriter and her award for Best Song Musically and Lyrically was well deserved. That's a view shared by David Gilmour whose acceptance speech for his own lifetime achievement award ended with a hope that she would be receiving her own in 20-30 years.

Some of the speeches touched on the difficulties of collaborating. Amanda Ghost, collecting the award for most sold song, Beautiful Liar, said: "It's nice to be up here collecting an award with people I actually like." Not sure what she was referring to there, but she was one of the writers behind James Blunt's Beautiful. Chris Difford commented on his on(and off)-going collaboration with fellow Squeeze man Glenn Tillbrook: "We've collaborated for 35 years," he said, "of which we've been on speaking terms for about 5."

In many ways, last night's awards were similar to the many that have gone before it. We all celebrated the accomplishments of some very talented writers, everyone got drunk and there were some serious networking going on. But listening in on conversations at many of the tables, there was serious concern about the future of songwriting and specifically of copyright; of how to collect some sort of revenue for artists, writers and music labels from the new types of music use.

Publishing - the share of royalties generated for a writer and that earned from the public performance of music - has historically been viewed as the safe, stable side of the music industry. While the record label side of companies like EMI went through turmoil, the publishing side would support it. Rarely, if ever, would the publishing side go into the red.

The digital age is changing all that, though. An MCPS/PRS representative - they're the body that collects royalties on behalf of artists - said they had serious concerns about the recent deal the agency had struck with YouTube worrying that any income writers could expect would be negligible.

So now even the publishing side of the music business is scrambling to find a solution to the internet dilemma - how to get a piece of the action when no-one's willing to pay for music.

One simple step in the right direction was suggested by David Ferguson of The British Academy of Composers & Songwriters in his introductory speech: make the manufacturers of music devices, such as mp3 players, pay a percentage of the retail price to the content providers.

MP3 players and mobile phones facilitate the easy copying and distribution of music, so the argument goes. Should the manufacturers of such items not be expected to compensate writers and artists for that functionality?

The rest of Europe has had this levy in place for music devices for years. It works perfectly in countries like France, Sweden and Germany. Why, many people were asking last night, can't we apply it here?